That ‘context’ for that interest is in the form of connective tissue – which in the instance means a mix of document trails, joint operational histories, and social connections between key individuals. Its especially complex because our take is that both a potential, sanctioned CIA project and the emerging conspiracy against JFK evolved within those same connections.

Which makes it challenging to discuss in print, and in person. To deal with that we are doing interviews with several show hosts with long time histories exploring the Kennedy assassination. Given that everyone has their own preferences and their own favorites we will post them here and you can take your choice. The most recent is with Chuck Ochelli at this link: https://www.spreaker.com/episode/ochelli-ewffect-4-15-2026-larry-hancock-david-boylan–71357118

More should follow as the paperback edition becomes generally available next week, at the moment Amazon and a number of other book sellers are offering in for pre-order. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/oswald-puzzle-larry-joe-hancock/1146419018;jsessionid=5DDFEA4E1DA4194A8E09D80D1BA5D682.prodny_store02-atgap07?ean=9781510786899

https://bookshop.org/p/books/oswald-puzzle-reconsidering-lee-harvey-oswald-david-boylan/771435d2236b68be?ean=9781510786899&next=t&next=t&affiliate=1688

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Oswald-Puzzle-Reconsidering-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Paperback-9781510786899/18511353334

Note: The paperback edition is available for pre-order: https://www.amazon.com/Oswald-Puzzle-Reconsidering-Lee-Harvey/dp/1510786899/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0

But of equal importance are the New Orleans/Miami connections outside SAS, social and operational connections which had begun during the first Cuba project of 1959/60. Connections among the Cubans who volunteered for the fight against the Castro regime, individuals in organizations such as the Cuban Revolutionary Council organized to provide political support for that effort, volunteers who went on special missions into Cuba – and beyond them a much more close-knit group who had been actively working to assassinate Fidel Castro from 1963 on.  

In 1963 New Orleans, individuals from that anti-Castro milieu were involved in engaging Lee Harvey Oswald, even in contacting him under false pretenses as fellow travelers. Those individuals – all documented sources for both the FBI and CIA – are of special interest not only because of their knowledge of Oswald, but because there is evidence that they kept that knowledge to themselves, even lying about it.    

Which of course raises the question of who they did choose to share that knowledge with – exploring that question led David and I some definite thoughts on Oswald himself came to be manipulated into the position of ultimately becoming a patsy in the JFK assassination.

It’s a deep story, with a lot of names and details not part of the more common Kennedy conspiracy discussions.  Fortunately, David and I recently had a change to dig into it with Doug Campbell, someone with a deep interest into that group of Cubans and their associates.  It was a long conversation and we think an important one.  I’d encourage you to give it a listen:

Rex covers documents related to all three assassinations – JFK, MLK, and RFK – discussing the state of release in each area, as well as related declassification, and redaction issues.

He also gives ‘call outs’ on significant documents in each area, with links to the documents themselves.

Beyond that he explains how to use the MFF Explorer, likely the best search tool available for each of the record sets, all three sets of new releases now available on the MFF site.

The new section also includes a summary of the current state of declassification as well as on the state of the MFF legal action related to document releases.

Its all a really significant contribution to the overall document release process and I highly recommend giving it a good read.

The first thing coming up is the annual conference hosted by the Scientific Coalition for UAP studies. This year it will be held in Toronto in July and the conference will feature some of the major figures involved in the subject, including individuals who are well informed on what is going on with UFOs and the US government. You can find out the details at this link: https://explorescu.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/scu-2026-conference-on-uap-registration-hotel-rooms-7451c3fc-eb4b-41f1-9f21-05d0c6d08fad?hid=NTM2OTkyOTM=&utm_campaign=dms_email_blast_4541521

As to the state of affairs with UFOs, last week I was on Chuck Ochelli’s show and we caught up on what was going on both awith the government’s investigation as is currently being conducted by AARO: https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/UNCLASSIFIED-FY23_Consolidated_Annual_Report_on_UAP-Oct_25_2023_1236.pdf

As well as what is happening within the ‘private sector’ of UFO investigations: https://www.spreaker.com/episode/ochelli-effect-3-18-2026-larry-hancock–70748768

And as for myself, the upcoming book by our SCU study team – UFO Intentions / Decoding the Patterns is now available on Amazon for pre-order, we just turned over the manuscript to the publisher and it should be available this coming October: https://www.amazon.com/UFO-Intentions-Larry-Joe-Hancock/dp/1510787623

The team is currently at work on a follow up book which will involve an in depth examination of UFO origins.

And if you were still wondering about those pesky drones over New Jersey, you might find this interesting: https://www.twz.com/air/what-cops-saw-chasing-down-jersey-drones-detailed-in-new-documents

No need to comment pro or con, just wanted to be on record with where I stand. Again…

I also happen to be a board member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) and have been for several years. In conjunction with that I have been part of a team which has worked on the problem for over six years, published four extensive studies on UFO activity patterns and has a fifth coming up. We will have the first book on our work published this October – ‘UFO Intentions / Decoding the Patterns’.

I will be discussing the upcoming book in shows by this summer but in the meantime work goes on SCU will be holding its annual conference and if you are interested in getting a factual update on the state of UFO research, I certainly would recommend it. You can find out more about the conference here: https://mail.cityemail.com/webmail/?_task=mail&_caps=pdf%3D1%2Cflash%3D0%2Ctiff%3D0%2Cwebp%3D1%2Cpgpmime%3D0&_uid=225735&_mbox=INBOX.Trash&_safe=1&_action=show

And here: https://mailchi.mp/solveadvocacy.com/christopher-mellon-keynote-scus-2026-annual-conference-toronto-registration-now-opem?e=7958ce6d45

Of course UFOs are in the news a lot – so much so its hard to keep up with the facts about what is going on. The major media hardly ever to back to stories to do follow ups these days but if you were interested in the New Jersey Drones you might check this out: https://www.twz.com/air/what-cops-saw-chasing-down-jersey-drones-detailed-in-new-documents

To a large extent that work was based in the implications of some of the more recent document releases, and in particular David’s document digging, tracing in more depth exactly who knew what about Oswald when within both the CIA and within the Cuban exile community. One of the interesting points that emerged from that was the extent to which not only the CIA was compartmentalizing Oswald information, but the degree which long term CIA and FBI sources within the exile community were doing the same thing. Only the FBI appeared to be sharing with everyone (shockingly).

To help the set the stage for the release, we will be appearing on a small number of well respected JFK shows over the next several weeks and sharing discussions with them here. There may be some repetition in that, but the hosts have their own areas of interest and that tends to differentiate the shows – sometimes in areas that surprise us.

I had a very interesting talk with Alan Dale the other day and we ended up talking about the degree to which Desmond Fitzgerald appeared to be carrying out a number of operations in the fall of 1963 that were in direct conflict with JFK’s initiatives and in some instances his direct orders. It began to really raise the classic question of deniability, were the two men not talking, not in sync with each other or was Fitzgerald carrying our activities and shielding JFK from them to give him political or foreign relations deniability?

Hopefully that will come up when we do record with Alan, but in the meantime I just finished a show with Tim and Eli at the ‘Ciphered Past” and talked about the second edition as well as some of their particular interests – including Mexico City and the Harlandale house. Here is the link, if you choose to listen I hope you enjoy it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mfbCLvB_A&t=1045s

different hosts tend to have different areas of focus so that tends to lead the dialogs

/

For those interested you can walk back though a full six sessions of that on my Substack at https://larryhancock1.substack.com/

Beyond that, for those following our work on AMWORLD and the speculation that personnel recruited into it were used in the attack in Dallas, it is worth noting that while Carl Jenkins took over that program in early 1964, much of the initial support for its recruiting and training came out of JMWAVE, with most of the earliest recruits – such as Carlos Hernandez and Felix Rodriquez having been operational for the CIA either as part of the initial Cuba project or later in various maritime paramilitary operations organized and managed by JMWAVE personnel.

And for some reason the conspiracy talk has always been more about the interviews themselves than about either the nature of the questions, the way they were delivered or what Oswald was told – and would have taken away from the exchanges.

The first thing that stands out to me is that the interrogation was not at all typical of Fritz, who had a reputation for aggressiveness, for what has to be called browbeating, and for forcing confessions.  We see none of that in his exchanges with Oswald, as far as we can tell Oswald was not even shown the charges against him or pushed to sign a confession – unlike his friend Wesley Frazier.

What is more amazing is that Oswald was not ‘pushed’ with the crime scene evidence available. He was shown a photo of him holding a rifle but not challenged with the rifle itself, recovered from his workplace or told his prints had been confirmed on it. 

He was asked about a paper sack but not shown the one in evidence – as Frazier was – nor told it had his prints on it.  He was not challenged with witnesses who identified him as the shooter. It’s not unusual for police to push suspects by overstating their case – Fritz was well known for that approach. Yet none of that occurred with Oswald.

He wasn’t pushed with actual evidence relating to a shooting from the TSBD and the shooting of a police officer received even less of attention, the fact that Fritz let him get away with a smart alack remark about carrying a pistol is an indication of how lightly he was being treated.

For decades the question has been, why was Oswald so casual about a lawyer?  Why was he so confident in remarks to his brother and wife, a record of his personal remarks that weekend supports his own remark that he was just being picked on because he worked in the TSBD and had been in Russia – he was being set up for his history not because he had really done it. There was no real case against him.

Is the answer to those questions may lie in the weakness of his interrogation and the case that was not being made to him?  At the time the police appeared to have a solid evidentiary case, yet they did not present that to him – or apparently to the DA before charges were written – nor did they push him to confess. 

There seem to be a lot of things wrong with the interrogation, and Chuck Ochelli and I discussed that at length last week,  if you are interested you can find that discussion online at https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-ochelli-effect-2-4-2026-larry-hancock–69799347

At the time of his arrest, he had told the press that he was being targeted simply because he had been in Russia and worked in a building at the scene of the shooting.  He described himself as being set up as a patsy, implying that he was a suspect of opportunity based on his background.

From that standpoint it’s interesting to look at what the police had presented to him in making their own case.  One reader pointed out earlier that police sometimes hold back on what they have as part of an investigation so it’s also interesting to see what Oswald was told, as compared to what he was physically shown and questioned about as charges were being drawn against him.

We know the following from Captain Fritz’s Warren Commission Report, supplemented by handwritten notes and observations from FBI agents – https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A11_ReportsDPD.pdf  and https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103#relPageId=8

Oswald was told the police knew he owned a rifle and he was shown a photo of him holding a rifle – but he was not shown the rifle in evidence, not told the rifle had been recovered from the TSBD or that the rifle had been shown to have his prints on it. He was not shown the rifle in evidence along with the photo showing him to be holding the same rifle.  However, Fritz report describes the rifle being shown to Marina Oswald and there certainly was plenty of time to confront Oswald with it before it was removed from Dallas by the FBI.

Oswald was not shown the paper documentation of his purchase of a rifle identical to the one recovered from the scene of the crime and with the photo showing him holding a similar rifle. That material collected and was available – Fritz mentioned asking Oswald about buying the rifle from Kleins, but made no mention of confronting him with the documents.

There is no mention by Fritz of stating to Oswald that the rifle traced to him via mail order had been recovered at the TSBD with his prints being on it.

Oswald was not shown the paper sack purportedly recovered from the TSBD, not confronted with the fact that his prints were on it.  He was told about Frazier’s remarks of what Fritz described as a ‘long’ paper sack (an exaggeration by Fritz) and curtain rods were discussed.  Yet Oswald was not shown the sack in question even though Frazier had been – and under polygraph maintained that it was not the sack Oswald had carried to work that Frida…. indicating Fritz was withholding ‘negative’ information from Oswald.

Even though Oswald was quite well aware of and even protested the clothing disconnect with others in the lineups, Fritz makes no mention of witnesses identifying him as the killer of JFK and officer Tippitt.  Certainly, that assertion should have shaken Oswald’s confidence.

If we are to accept Buell Frazier’s story of being intimidated, threatened, and forced to sign a confession as at least an accessory it is strange to find Fritz not mentioning confronting Oswald with any of the actual physical crime scene evidence or even advising him what charges were being filed and asking for a confession.  Fritz makes no mention of that either in respect to his interviews with Oswald although his report does mention going over all the evidence with the Dallas DA and filing the charges.

In short, while none of this implies any special accusation in regard to Fritz’s interrogation, it does seem inconsistent with his reputation for aggressiveness and certainly with Frazier’s remarks about his own interviews.  It also seems strange that Fritz did not  use any physical crime scene evidence to challenge Oswald on his denials in regard to buying a rifle, owning a rifle at the time of the assassination or of carrying a rifle to work in a long paper sack.

Beyond that, by itself, the failures to confront or challenge Oswald with actual physical and witness evidence may explain to some extent – assuming he had not shot the president – Oswald’s apparent confidence that his defense would be solid and that he would carry the day against charges.